Regular Member Heman Posted September 2, 2003 Regular Member Share Posted September 2, 2003 Are microscopes really necessary? I've heard doctors tell me that they can be beneficial, however they are mostly a marketing gimmick. Doctors have told me that it is possible to see the follicular units with the naked eye. On the topic of reduction in loss of donor hair. I've heard that most loss of donor hair occurs when the donor strip is originally taken out. Do microscopes really reduce the amount of wasted hair during disection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regular Member Heman Posted September 2, 2003 Author Regular Member Share Posted September 2, 2003 Are microscopes really necessary? I've heard doctors tell me that they can be beneficial, however they are mostly a marketing gimmick. Doctors have told me that it is possible to see the follicular units with the naked eye. On the topic of reduction in loss of donor hair. I've heard that most loss of donor hair occurs when the donor strip is originally taken out. Do microscopes really reduce the amount of wasted hair during disection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member arfy Posted September 2, 2003 Senior Member Share Posted September 2, 2003 There have been studies that showed the microscopes increased final yield by as much as 20 to 30 percent. Whether this is because the microscope helped see grafts that would have been thrown out, or prevented the dissecting blade from damaging follicles that would have been damaged without (or both) I don't know. But doctors who use the microscope almost universally seem to notice increased yields, from what they "thought" would be identical harvests. The doctors who say that the microscopes are just a marketing gimmick probably don't actually use them, so how would they know? Ask a doctor who has used both methods (microscope/non-microscope). Look, the microscope slows the process down. It becomes "pickier" and more time consuming. A doctor could make more money by doing fast & dirty dissection without a microscope. The only reason to use a microscope is to improve results. There is no better "marketing gimmick" than GREAT results! The idea that it is a gimmick is ridiculous... how many patients would understand why a clinic was using a microscope, as a marketing gimmick? Very few. If clinics are using it ONLY for marketing, they need to come up with something flashier, like an automatic graft cutter. Now THAT would make a good gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now